From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 7/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: tidy list walking in ldlm_flock()
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:53:49 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <150872002980.3340.10618324564169458593.stgit@noble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <150871988297.3340.4522589460981284121.stgit@noble>
Use list_for_each_entry variants to
avoid the explicit list_entry() calls.
This allows us to use list_for_each_entry_safe_from()
instread of adding a local list-walking macro.
Also improve some comments so that it is more obvious
that the locks are sorted per-owner and that we need
to find the insertion point.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c | 45 ++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
index 1bf56892fcf5..0bf6dce1c5b1 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
@@ -59,17 +59,6 @@
#include <linux/list.h>
#include "ldlm_internal.h"
-/**
- * list_for_remaining_safe - iterate over the remaining entries in a list
- * and safeguard against removal of a list entry.
- * \param pos the &struct list_head to use as a loop counter. pos MUST
- * have been initialized prior to using it in this macro.
- * \param n another &struct list_head to use as temporary storage
- * \param head the head for your list.
- */
-#define list_for_remaining_safe(pos, n, head) \
- for (n = pos->next; pos != (head); pos = n, n = pos->next)
-
static inline int
ldlm_same_flock_owner(struct ldlm_lock *lock, struct ldlm_lock *new)
{
@@ -125,8 +114,8 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
{
struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
struct ldlm_namespace *ns = ldlm_res_to_ns(res);
- struct list_head *tmp;
- struct list_head *ownlocks = NULL;
+ struct ldlm_lock *tmp;
+ struct ldlm_lock *ownlocks = NULL;
struct ldlm_lock *lock = NULL;
struct ldlm_lock *new = req;
struct ldlm_lock *new2 = NULL;
@@ -151,23 +140,23 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
/* This loop determines where this processes locks start
* in the resource lr_granted list.
*/
- list_for_each(tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
- lock = list_entry(tmp, struct ldlm_lock,
- l_res_link);
+ list_for_each_entry(lock, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link) {
if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req)) {
- ownlocks = tmp;
+ ownlocks = lock;
break;
}
}
- /* Scan the locks owned by this process that overlap this request.
+ /* Scan the locks owned by this process to find the insertion point
+ * (as locks are ordered), and to handle overlaps.
* We may have to merge or split existing locks.
*/
- if (!ownlocks)
- ownlocks = &res->lr_granted;
-
- list_for_remaining_safe(ownlocks, tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
- lock = list_entry(ownlocks, struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
+ if (ownlocks)
+ lock = ownlocks;
+ else
+ lock = list_entry(&res->lr_granted,
+ struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe_from(lock, tmp, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link) {
if (!ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, new))
break;
@@ -295,7 +284,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
lock->l_granted_mode);
/* insert new2 at lock */
- ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, ownlocks, new2);
+ ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, &lock->l_res_link, new2);
LDLM_LOCK_RELEASE(new2);
break;
}
@@ -309,8 +298,12 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
if (!added) {
list_del_init(&req->l_res_link);
- /* insert new lock before ownlocks in list. */
- ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, ownlocks, req);
+ /* insert new lock before "lock", which might be the
+ * next lock for this owner, or might be the first
+ * lock for the next owner, or might not be a lock at
+ * all, but instead points at the head of the list
+ */
+ ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, &lock->l_res_link, req);
}
/* In case we're reprocessing the requested lock we can't destroy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-23 0:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-23 0:53 [PATCH 0/9] Assorted cleanups for staging/.../lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c NeilBrown
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 4/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:19 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 1/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' " NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:08 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 9/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused field 'fwd_generation' NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:39 ` [lustre-devel] " Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-27 11:10 ` NeilBrown
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 6/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_flock_destroy() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:23 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 5/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'overlaps' variable NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:20 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2017-10-27 9:32 ` [PATCH 7/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: tidy list walking in ldlm_flock() Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 8/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unnecessary 'ownlocks' variable NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:33 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 3/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unneeded 'err' arg to ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:11 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 2/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'work_list' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:09 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-24 22:20 ` [PATCH 0/9] Assorted cleanups for staging/.../lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c James Simmons
2017-10-25 21:55 ` NeilBrown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=150872002980.3340.10618324564169458593.stgit@noble \
--to=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jsimmons@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
--cc=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®